Returns connection status and URLs. When all providers are connected, returns authenticated:true and empty pending[]. When credentials are missing, returns connect_url for the toolkit and per-install URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context about the return values based on connection state (authenticated:true vs connect_urls), providing additional value beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured paragraph of two sentences with no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds meaningful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and simple behavior, the description adequately covers the two main states and return values. No output schema exists, but the description explains what to expect. Complete for this level of complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4 per instructions. Description adds nothing about parameters, but none are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns connection status and URLs, with specific details on return values based on connection state. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'authenticate' by focusing on status checking.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'authenticate' or 'openfinance_list_connections'. The description implies it's for checking connection status but does not specify when other tools would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: the openfinance_* family cleanly separates accounts, transactions, bills, loans, investments, connections, sync, and provider health, while platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, toolkit_info) cover different concerns. Even potentially similar pairs like get_item_status vs provider_status and list_transactions vs list_transactions_by_item are clearly differentiated by their descriptions.
Open Finance tools follow a uniform openfinance_<verb>_<noun> snake_case pattern, and the generic tools are also readable English verbs/nouns (authenticate, connect, report_bug). The main inconsistency is that a few generic tools are bare nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info) while the rest are verbs, but the mix is predictable and never confusing.
25 tools sit at the upper boundary of what is comfortable, and the set spans two distinct domains (Open Finance data access plus MCP platform/marketplace management). Each tool does appear to earn its place, but the count is heavy enough to feel borderline rather than optimally scoped.
The Open Finance surface is thorough: list/get for accounts, transactions, bills, loans, and investments, with sync, connection health, provider status, category correction, and disconnect all covered. The platform side also covers authentication, connection status, marketplace discovery/invocation, bug reporting, and version info, leaving no obvious dead ends for the stated purpose.